Hi everyone,
>From the call, I thought it would be worth suggesting the terminology based on success criteria, rather than type of tool. It is very similar to Jan's previous wording with some cuts:
------------------
1. "Full" ATAG 2.0 Conformance (A, AA, or AAA)
- this conformance option can be chosen for an authoring tool, or set of tools, that pass all relevant success criteria for creating accessible web content.
- Conformance is claimed in the same way as WCAG (must meet all A to meet AA etc.)
2. "Partial" Conformance (No-Level, A, AA, AAA)
- this conformance option can be chosen for authoring tools that would require other tools to conform as a complete authoring system.
- "No" answers are recorded, but ignored when determining the level ON THE CONDITION that for any "No" answers, the tool must not prevent the SC from being met, in theory, by another authoring component as part of a larger authoring process.
------------------
In supporting information we can talk about why you would want to go for partial conformance, and that people can put sets of tools together to gain a fully accessible system.
I fully admit that 'partial' isn't the most desirable term, but 2 minutes with a thesaurus didn't help me either :-/
Also, on the call I suggested using 'workflow' or a user-centred definition of what is relevant to test, but didn't explain it very well.
My earlier email said: WCAG takes the point of view that the thing that needs to conform is what the user downloads. In our case it is everything that contributes to that download.
The 'thing' that needs to meet ATAG is the workflow the author uses, rather than a tool per-se.
This is partly because someone could put together a set of tools that pass all the ATAG SC, but not all content created for the web goes through them. Perhaps that dealt with elsewhere in the docs?
However, if we consider a set of tools that fully conforms to ATAG as the best result, then perhaps using a full/partial definition based on the SC is the best approach.
Kind regards,
-Alastair